Federal stance on marijuana will be topic in U.S. Senate hearing

A bar code is seen attached to a marijuana plant at a grow house in Denver. The bar codes are assigned to each plant and follow it through the growing and distribution process. Eight former Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs say the federal government needs to act now or it might lose the chance to nullify Colorado and Washington's laws legalizing recreational marijuana use. Photo: Ed Andrieski

The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice,” with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on the hot seat.

The ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, “will submit a question for the record … (that) will deal with the department’s enforcement of federal marijuana laws,” said Beth Levine, the GOP’s Judiciary press secretary.

“Senator Grassley does not plan on asking it live, as there are other pressing national security questions he’s likely to ask,” Levine said. “I can’t speak for the other members of the committee.”

A spokeswoman for committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said the question could “be among a range of issues brought up tomorrow.”

Leahy, for one, has backed the right of states to decide the marijuana question.

In 2003, during the confirmation of Karen Tandy to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration, Leahy advised that as head of the DEA she back off of heavy-handed enforcement.

“I continue to be concerned about the DEA’s actions in states that have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. It has been my view that although the Supreme Court has stated clearly that the Federal government has the right to enforce the Federal prohibition on marijuana in these states, it would be a wise exercise of discretion and resources for the DEA to focus its attention elsewhere,” he said then.

Leahy also wrote to “drug czar” Gil Kerlikowske (Director of National Drug Control Policy) in December about the conflict of Washington and Colorado’s new laws and federal law. He also provided a solution.

He wanted answers, though it’s unclear if any have been provided to him yet.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee has a significant interest in the effect of these developments on Federal drug control policy. How does the Office of National Drug Control Policy intend to prioritize Federal resources, and what recommendations are you making to the Department of Justice and other agencies in light of the choice by citizens of Colorado and Washington to legalize personal use of small amounts of marijuana? What assurance can and will the administration give to state officials involved in the licensing of marijuana retailers that they will not face Federal criminal penalties for carrying out duties assigned to them under state law?

“Legislative options exist to resolve the differences between Federal and state law in this area and end the uncertainty that residents of Colorado and Washington now face. One option would be to amend the Federal Controlled Substances Act to allow possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, at least in jurisdictions where it is legal under state law. In order to give these options full consideration, the Committee needs to understand how the administration intends to respond to the decision of the voters in Colorado and Washington.”

Q: You’ve written on the White House website that “coming out of the election, we are in the midst of a national conversation on marijuana.” Is the U.S. headed for a patchwork of policies, state by state?

A: I think a patchwork of policies would create real difficulties. We still have federal law that places marijuana as being illegal. The administration has not done a particularly good job of, one, talking about marijuana as a public health issue, and number two, talking about what can be done and where we should be headed on our drug policy.

Q: There was such an evolution on gay marriage within this administration that it’s hard not to think that something might change on marijuana.

A: I don’t look at marijuana as a human right, or a civil right, or even in the same venue as gay marriage. This is a public health issue. There are significant health concerns around marijuana from all the science, not ideology. I don’t see the legalization of drugs and making them widely available as a good thing, and I don’t think locking everyone up is a good thing either.